Pamela Cruz. Peninsula 360 Press [P360P].

While it is true that President Joseph Biden could take executive action to support immigrants who are under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals or DACA, it is not enough, because legislation is needed to consolidate immigration policy, so there are still judicial challenges to overcome for the program to be the light for millions of immigrants.

This was pointed out by experts during an informative session held by Ethnic Media Serviceswhere they agreed that in terms of immigration, it is often difficult for parties to find common ground.

"The only way to truly protect undocumented people is for Congress to pass a path to citizenship, and it should do so as soon as possible," said Joseph Villeda, director of policy and advocacy for the Coalition for Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).

The expert added that the Democrats who are in charge of the House of Representatives, the Senate and the White House "must do everything that is required, that is in their power and not allow the Republicans to obstruct this issue".

He also explained that DACA has been a benefit for young people and their families, but also for the economy.

"If there is a negative court decision against DACA, it will be up to Congress that the 600,000 beneficiaries do not return to the shadows. It is time to help the undocumented and DACA," he said.

"The immigration system doesn't work for anyone, it's broken, outdated and inhumane."

He urged "the Democratic majority to try to reform the filibuster and seek a reconciliation that can help.

Villeda recalled that 80 percent of California voters support a path to citizenship for all immigrants, understanding that they contribute to the economy.

"The undocumented population in our state is well established, they contribute to the economy and it's time for Congress to actually provide permanent relief for documented people. But also for the undocumented." He said.

And, he said, 50 percent of DACA recipients surveyed by CHIRLA said they have been able to open a bank account, while 33 percent obtained their first credit card, all under DACA protection.

"So we see that change and immigration status is not only beneficial to the individual, but it's also beneficial to our economy," he said.

José Muñoz, national communications manager for United We Dream, knows very well how important it is for the DACA program to move forward and finally allow millions of undocumented youth to live free and with the guarantees that a new immigration status can give them.

During his nearly 30 years of life, Múñoz has lived with the anguish of being detained and deported.

It wasn't until 2013 when he benefited from the DACA program and was finally able to get a work permit, a driver's license and finish college.

However, today, continuing with the program is in the hands of the courts, because since President Trump canceled DACA, his life, as well as that of more than 600,000 young people benefited from this program, of which two-thirds are 25 years old or younger, is in the doldrums.

Muñoz, who arrived in the U.S. just months after he was born, said that "so far, DACA is still in danger. DACA is still in danger.

"In 2013 I received DACA for the first time, which allowed me to get a work permit, a driver's license, and finish college. That alleviated some of the fear of potentially being detained, shackled and deported, but unfortunately, we've seen over the past four years that DACA recipients like me have lived our lives as a court case, even after the Supreme Court thwarted the Trump administration's plans to end DACA," he recalled.

"A path to citizenship is an imperative, and that's not all, there are hundreds of thousands of 15- and 16-year-olds who have been waiting to apply for DACA since Trump tried to end it in 2017. They hope to apply for the first time to get some of the same protections that have been granted to those of us who have been enrolled in the program for years," he added.

The young Muñoz, who belongs to the LGBTTTIQ+ community, pointed out that although DACA has helped hundreds of thousands of young people, it does not protect all undocumented immigrants.

"There are millions of immigrants who never qualified for DACA in the first place. And so the only way to really provide protection for the undocumented is for Congress to pass a pathway to citizenship as quickly as possible."

"At United We Dream we know there is no time for excuses. Our communities need relief and they need it now. Democrats control the House, the Senate and the White House, and they must do everything in their power to deliver for our communities," he said.

He said politicians "are more interested in playing politics with our lives, holding legislation hostage to use young immigrants as pawns in the next election.

"We will not let them use Republican obstructionism as an excuse. Democrats must not allow Republicans to obstruct," he concluded.

But what is obstructionism all about?

According to immigration attorney Brent Renison of Global Immigration Counsel, the filibuster was created in 1806 and has been used by both parties when they are in the minority in the Senate.

The immigration expert explained that between 1950 and 1970, southern U.S. senators used obstructionism to oppose proposals that sought to establish civil rights, at the time, to give equality to the African-American community.

However, it was not until 2006 that senators began to use it to oppose immigration proposals.

"Between 2010 and 2013, Republicans used it extensively to reject proposals from Democratic senators. In turn, Senate Democrats used this strategy to oppose a smaller number of Republican bills between 2015 and 2020," he said.

Today, the Democratic Party has 50 seats in the Senate, so to move forward with immigration legislation, at least 10 representatives of the Republican Party will have to join, not an easy task for an issue that has been on the table for many years.

"They will have to deal with the requirement that bills must receive 60 votes in the Senate to pass. The filibuster would force Democrats to get the support of at least 10 Republicans to pass most immigration bills."

Dreaming... of an effective and inclusive immigration law

For Theresa Cardinal Brown, director of migration and border crossing policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center, the HR 6 legislation will give permanent resident status to dreamers and Temporary Protected Status (TPS) beneficiaries and to dependent children of highly skilled foreign workers who are often left without status when they turn 18.

"It is estimated that more than 3 million people will be eligible under this bill," he said.

In the case of H.R. 1603, which was also approved by the representatives, he pointed out that it provides a pathway to obtain residency and apply for citizenship for agricultural workers who meet certain requirements, in addition to expanding the H-2A visa program for temporary agricultural workers.

Cardinal Brown said there are more than a million undocumented workers who could become citizens, thanks to this bill.

"The bill would provide a certified agricultural worker visa to undocumented individuals who have at least one thousand thirty-five hours of agricultural work during the two years prior to March 8, 2021."

In that regard, he noted that some immigration advocates want H2-A visas to be fully portable so that the worker can go from job to job, without being tied to an employer for sponsorship.

When questioned by reporters about whether Biden could approve an executive action to pass these bills if they get stuck in Congress, the specialist responded that "the president can do it, but not like the proposed legislation would."

"Biden has already restored DACA so that new applicants can register, but there are court challenges. And if the courts say the DACA program is illegal, it would end and there would have to be other legislation for dreamers," he said.

He added that the current president has also extended TPS, but the provisions to give them permanent immigration status could not be with a presidential executive action.

For her part, Leydy Rangel, spokeswoman for the United Farmworkers Foundation (UFW), emphasized that all those who are under DACA protection, and those who are signing up for it, need permanent protection.

She, like nearly 600,000 other young people in the country, is protected by DACA, which allowed her to go to college after working in the fields, work that her parents, siblings and cousins continue to do.

"I live worried about renewing DACA every two years and because I can't establish a permanent life," she explained.

And, he said, nearly a million of the country's farm workers are undocumented, all of them coming from different places, but mainly Mexico.

That is why, he stressed, a law is needed to legalize agricultural workers to allow them to visit their families in their places of origin, and not leave everything behind, where only memories prevail.

"They would have the legal right to contribute to society through agriculture. With a path to citizenship they could also improve their working conditions and avoid abuses and other related problems," he said.

Bay City News [BCN]. Peninsula 360 Press [P360P].

               A federal judge on Monday refused to dismiss a civil rights class-action lawsuit against Social Finance Inc. or SoFi, a San Francisco-based online lending platform that allegedly denied loans to immigrants legally residing in the United States when they applied for credit. 

               SoFi was founded in 2011 by a group of Stanford business school graduates to help people refinance student loans at lower rates.  

               In the intervening years, SoFi has expanded the services and products it offers to its more than 1.6 million members. SoFi's online platform offers members discounted loans, financial advice and the ability to invest in stocks (including IPOs) and cryptocurrencies. Among the member benefits described on its website are "money tips" and "merchandise rewards", as well as professional advice and member events.

               The company is currently on the verge of going public through a merger with a special purpose acquisition company, or SPAC, as a way to avoid the delay and expense of an initial public offering. The merger values SoFi at $8650 million, according to a company statement.

               The lawsuit was filed in May 2020 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

               Both plaintiffs are non-citizen immigrants who are legal residents of the United States.

               Ruben Juarez is a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipient. Calin Constantin Segarceanu, a Romanian national, is a green card holder and has the immigration status of "conditional permanent resident," according to the lawsuit. 

               Plaintiffs sought to certify class actions, including a claim on behalf of all "all non-U.S. citizens who resided in the United States and had DACA at the time they applied for and were denied or unsuccessfully attempted to apply for any SoF loan." 

               They also identified a claim by non-U.S. citizens who were Conditional Permanent Residents at the time they were denied any SoFi loan. 

               The complaint notes that Juarez was born in Mexico and has lived in the United States since he was ten years old. He obtained DACA status in 2012 and a Social Security number that same year. 

               He attended college in New York and earned a bachelor's degree in accounting and a master's degree in global finance from Fordham in 2016. After graduating, he began working in finance for several well-known companies, including JPMorgan Chase.

               To finance his education, Juarez took out private student loans with an interest rate of 8.6 percent, according to the statement of facts. When he first applied for a refinancing loan from SoFi, its members were offered rates between 3 and 4 percent.

               He applied online, but because he could not say that he was a U.S. citizen, visa holder, or "lawful permanent resident," he was not allowed to move forward. 

               Thereafter, SoFi sent him offers of student loan financing in 2017, '18 and '19, but when he tried to apply he was again denied, even though he claims he had an excellent credit score and was creditworthy.

               Segarceanu came to the United States in 2015 on a student visa and earned a bachelor's and master's degree in computer science from the Illinois Institute of Technology. The complaint says he is employed as a software engineer for Amazon Web Services. In 2018, he married a U.S. citizen. He then applied for permanent residency and obtained conditional permanent residency.

               He tried to apply to SoFi for a personal loan in hopes of reducing the nearly 20 percent interest rate on his credit card, but was turned down because of his immigration status.  

               In the lawsuit, Juarez and Segarceanu asserted several claims, including a civil rights claim based on an 1866 statute stating that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts ... and to the full and equal benefit of the laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as are enjoyed by white citizens."

               The U.S. Supreme Court has previously ruled that the law protects noncitizens as well as citizens.

               SoFi sought to avoid the law's reach by arguing that it did not discriminate against claimants based on citizenship or alien status, but that the application process "takes immigration status into account," noting that noncitizens with long-term permanent resident status and some visa holders can obtain SoFi credits.

               U.S. District Court Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. noted that the broad goals of the law, such as prohibiting racial discrimination in the creation and enforcement of contracts, were intended to cover all lawfully present immigrants. Because the plaintiffs were lawfully present, they were entitled to bring discrimination claims. 

               SoFi asked the judge to send the case to arbitration based on the fact that Juarez had checked a box on the application in 2016 that said he consented to arbitration. However, the judge denied the request, finding that Juarez had filed his application several times after 2016 and had not consented on those occasions.

               SoFi asked the court to strike the class action allegations from the complaint on the basis that the plaintiffs sought to challenge the lending activities beyond the categories of loans they requested, but the court determined that those challenges were more appropriate to assert in the future when the court considers whether to certify the requested claims. 

               Moira Heiges-Goepfert, an attorney for the plaintiffs, said the case was part of a small group of "novel" cases applying post-Civil War civil rights law to alienage and race in the lending context.

               In his view, the case highlights the purpose behind DACA. "It was to help ... immigrants who were brought to this country as children to come out of the shadows and have the ability to participate in American life.

               SoFi's lawyers did not respond to a request for comment.